...
>        We now are changing over to a mid size. The frames being shallower
>are farther from the central hub, revolve faster, are drone brood and all in
>all extract in half the time. So all in all we prefer shallows.
>
>
>    ****************************************************
>   * David Eyre          9 Progress Drive, Unit 2,  *
>   * The Beeworks,    Orillia, Ontario, L3V 6H1. *
>   * [log in to unmask]      705-326-7171 *
>   * http://www.muskoka.net/~beeworks           *
>
 
Important point David.  With radial extraction, the greatest force is
farthest out from the center, so some of the 6/12 or 20 frame extractors
might tend to be slow in performance, whereas ones with greater diameter
(say 33 or 45 frame) would build up more force, emptying the frames faster
and probably more completely.  Another great thing about big extractors is
-  you can hide in them when your in-laws come to visit.
 
If I had a tangential REVERSIBLE extractor, say 4-frame size, maybe I'd run
deeps as honey supers.   That would be a good system for a sideliner who
wants to stay with hand-power.  A four-frame reversible is (or was) offered
by one of the suppliers in Quebec.
 
A usualy bottleneck is the uncapping.  If you can upcap the next load while
one is already spinning (under motor drive), you can minimize wasted time
waiting.
 
I'm refurbishing an old Root 45-frame job and in its day, deeps were the
rule for honey supers.  I'd imagine many tons of honey saw their way out
that gate.  I wish the machine were somewhat smaller, but it should really
do a number emptying out the medium size combs.  If nothing else it's a
piece of beekeeping nostalgia, big enough to crowd my shed.
 
How are parallel radials when it comes to comb size, speed of extraction,
or ease of use?  Maxant lists a number of models.  thanks,  jwg